Cars (whether powered by electricity, gasoline, or whatever) push against the road, and the amount of force (and thus energy) required as speed relative to the road increases.
But in space, we don't have roads. Rockets push against their reaction mass.
What is a hypothetical drive with no reaction mass pushing on?
While their description claims that there is no reaction mass pushing on, this does not mean that it is the correct explanation if their device would work.
The device might not work far from the Earth, but only in the neighbourhood of other bodies, due to some kind of interaction with them.
Moreover, while around the beginning of the 20th century it has become fashionable to rebrand what was called previously "aether" as "vacuum", this change of name has been just a useless cosmetic change.
The mathematical description of vacuum has remained the same as that of the aether as conceived by Maxwell and the other physicists who opposed the theories based on action at a distance, i.e. the vacuum is something that mediates the interaction between bodies. Regardless whether it is called aether, vacuum or electromagnetic field, in most theories it is endowed with properties like energy and momentum.
So it could happen that there would be a way for a device to push on the ubiquitous electromagnetic field.
This device may be a hoax or a honest mistake, but the current theories of physics are much farther from being completed than most people believe.
Much of the physics taught in school is full of junk that is more definitely wrong than the claims of this patent.
For example, the so-called Lorentz force, which is taught as the way how the electromagnetic interaction happens, does not satisfy Newton's law of action and reaction, so it also does not push on what it should push. (When the Lorentz force is integrated over closed loops, it gives correct total results, but when the forces that act on parts of the circuits are computed, the actions and reactions are not equal.)
Only the Ampere force, which nobody learns, has a form that is compatible with Newton's laws.
Guess by that logic magnets shouldn't work? Because there is nothing to push on.
There already exists examples where you don't need an actual physical material being expelled in order to have thrust. The key in this example is they are saying they have reached a force great enough to counter gravity.
A magnetic object attracts or repells another object with the exact same strength that affects it. Look up Newton's third law, in case your not familiar with it -- can't tell from your messages.
I'm just saying you don't have to expel a gas to form thrust. Seems like a lot of the arguments here are 'newtons law requires to expel something to form thrust'. But magnets don't expel a gas. The forces translate.
The presentation is not advocating that they are violating the 3rd law. Most people's argument here boils down to 'but but , thrust, the 3rd law, duh, I read an engineering book in school once'. And dismiss this out of hand.
He provides a prototype, at least give it the same attention as the high temperature superconductor and replicate it, then provide some explanation where the force is coming from that negates any benefit. Like find if there is some static charge at play that is causing the measurement error and would make it useless.
Comments
Cars (whether powered by electricity, gasoline, or whatever) push against the road, and the amount of force (and thus energy) required as speed relative to the road increases.
But in space, we don't have roads. Rockets push against their reaction mass.
What is a hypothetical drive with no reaction mass pushing on?
While their description claims that there is no reaction mass pushing on, this does not mean that it is the correct explanation if their device would work.
The device might not work far from the Earth, but only in the neighbourhood of other bodies, due to some kind of interaction with them.
Moreover, while around the beginning of the 20th century it has become fashionable to rebrand what was called previously "aether" as "vacuum", this change of name has been just a useless cosmetic change.
The mathematical description of vacuum has remained the same as that of the aether as conceived by Maxwell and the other physicists who opposed the theories based on action at a distance, i.e. the vacuum is something that mediates the interaction between bodies. Regardless whether it is called aether, vacuum or electromagnetic field, in most theories it is endowed with properties like energy and momentum.
So it could happen that there would be a way for a device to push on the ubiquitous electromagnetic field.
This device may be a hoax or a honest mistake, but the current theories of physics are much farther from being completed than most people believe.
Much of the physics taught in school is full of junk that is more definitely wrong than the claims of this patent.
For example, the so-called Lorentz force, which is taught as the way how the electromagnetic interaction happens, does not satisfy Newton's law of action and reaction, so it also does not push on what it should push. (When the Lorentz force is integrated over closed loops, it gives correct total results, but when the forces that act on parts of the circuits are computed, the actions and reactions are not equal.)
Only the Ampere force, which nobody learns, has a form that is compatible with Newton's laws.
Guess by that logic magnets shouldn't work? Because there is nothing to push on.
There already exists examples where you don't need an actual physical material being expelled in order to have thrust. The key in this example is they are saying they have reached a force great enough to counter gravity.
A magnetic object attracts or repells another object with the exact same strength that affects it. Look up Newton's third law, in case your not familiar with it -- can't tell from your messages.
I'm just saying you don't have to expel a gas to form thrust. Seems like a lot of the arguments here are 'newtons law requires to expel something to form thrust'. But magnets don't expel a gas. The forces translate.
The presentation is not advocating that they are violating the 3rd law. Most people's argument here boils down to 'but but , thrust, the 3rd law, duh, I read an engineering book in school once'. And dismiss this out of hand.
He provides a prototype, at least give it the same attention as the high temperature superconductor and replicate it, then provide some explanation where the force is coming from that negates any benefit. Like find if there is some static charge at play that is causing the measurement error and would make it useless.
It grabs spacetime by the horns and pushes itself forward.